I read an article sometime ago, though I can’t seem to find it again: it was regarding an FMRI study in which people were shown erotic images, and for some reason they found that when straight men viewed homoerotic images(this was true even ofliberally minded ones who had no perception of it), there was a threat response activated in the brain. It was not true of any permutation of subject and erotica other than straight men viewing gay pornography.

It struck me at the time that perhaps—to the disappointment of we who would prefer a more tolerant society—that perhaps there’s something inate about this particular bigotry(and also a reason why lesbianism has at times been slightly more tolerated than it’s male counterpart).

Is anyone aware of this research, is my recollection of it wrong?(I’m willing to believe it is). I can’t seem to find my original source.

I read an article sometime ago, though I can’t seem to find it again: it was regarding an FMRI study in which people were shown erotic images, and for some reason they found that when straight men viewed homoerotic images(this was true even ofliberally minded ones who had no perception of it), there was a threat response activated in the brain. It was not true of any permutation of subject and erotica other than straight men viewing gay pornography.

It struck me at the time that perhaps—to the disappointment of we who would prefer a more tolerant society—that perhaps there’s something inate about this particular bigotry(and also a reason why lesbianism has at times been slightly more tolerated than it’s male counterpart).

Is anyone aware of this research, is my recollection of it wrong?(I’m willing to believe it is). I can’t seem to find my original source.

Regards,
Reilly

A recent study concluded that the conclusions reached by most studies were false.

If you’re interested about the psychology behind anti-gay feelings I would actually recommend looking into Jonathan Haidt and David Pizarro‘s work on the emotion of disgust and how that influences moral judgment. Pizarro and Haidt have actually collaborated on at least one study. Their work really drive home the point that even the most staunch consequentialist will find it sometimes inevitable to succumb to revulsion as a moral barometer whether they like it or not. Very interesting stuff.

If you’re interested about the psychology behind anti-gay feelings I would actually recommend looking into Jonathan Haidt and David Pizarro‘s work on the emotion of disgust and how that influences moral judgment. Pizarro and Haidt have actually collaborated on at least one study. Their work really drive home the point that even the most staunch consequentialist will find it sometimes inevitable to succumb to revulsion as a moral barometer whether they like it or not. Very interesting stuff.

One wonders if there exists a revulsion to homosexuality in humans that evolved to insure the propagation of the species.
Since that quality does not seem to be present in other animals, it seems more likely that the revulsion some exhibit towards those who prefer their own sex is caused by their own unaccepted latent predispositions.

If you’re interested about the psychology behind anti-gay feelings I would actually recommend looking into Jonathan Haidt and David Pizarro‘s work on the emotion of disgust and how that influences moral judgment. Pizarro and Haidt have actually collaborated on at least one study. Their work really drive home the point that even the most staunch consequentialist will find it sometimes inevitable to succumb to revulsion as a moral barometer whether they like it or not. Very interesting stuff.

One wonders if there exists a revulsion to homosexuality in humans that evolved to insure the propagation of the species.
Since that quality does not seem to be present in other animals, it seems more likely that the revulsion some exhibit towards those who prefer their own sex is caused by their own unaccepted latent predispositions.

I’m not too convinced it is some kind of evolutionary instinct to propagate the species. Not all disgust woudl accomplish this. For example, the vast majority of children have a revulsion toward vegetables (and there has even been a genetic component found to this) yet I doubt this is evolution’s way of wanting to dissuade healthy eating and instead direct them to a diet that can lower their life expectancy. Some revulsion is simply irrational and serves little to no purpose. Nonetheless such findings can greatly inform us about how we ordinarily deal with the world around us and can help to guide us in how we combat bad ideas that are often jusitifed through post-hoc rationalizations.

If you’re interested about the psychology behind anti-gay feelings I would actually recommend looking into Jonathan Haidt and David Pizarro‘s work on the emotion of disgust and how that influences moral judgment. Pizarro and Haidt have actually collaborated on at least one study. Their work really drive home the point that even the most staunch consequentialist will find it sometimes inevitable to succumb to revulsion as a moral barometer whether they like it or not. Very interesting stuff.

One wonders if there exists a revulsion to homosexuality in humans that evolved to insure the propagation of the species.
Since that quality does not seem to be present in other animals, it seems more likely that the revulsion some exhibit towards those who prefer their own sex is caused by their own unaccepted latent predispositions.

I’m not too convinced it is some kind of evolutionary instinct to propagate the species. Not all disgust would accomplish this. For example, the vast majority of children have a revulsion toward vegetables (and there has even been a genetic component found to this) yet I doubt this is evolution’s way of wanting to dissuade healthy eating and instead direct them to a diet that can lower their life expectancy. Some revulsion is simply irrational and serves little to no purpose. Nonetheless such findings can greatly inform us about how we ordinarily deal with the world around us and can help to guide us in how we combat bad ideas that are often jusitifed through post-hoc rationalizations.

Perhaps young, growing bodies are programmed to gravitate to more protein rich foods.
It’s hard to believe that a repulsion to vegetables in children would evolve without some benefit.
Maybe their reaction to things green may not qualify for the term repulsion.
Its difficult, if not impossible, for a human psyche to objectively isolate and determine the cause of its own reactions.
Perhaps the “problem” lies closer to home.
What does the term “revulsion” actually mean?
Is the revulsion that occurs when seeing putrifying flesh the same reaction as the revulsion that some say they experience concerning homosexuality?
Is the same emotion driving both reactions?
Perhaps all attempts to study human emotional reactions are elusive simply because the conceptual mind comes up with adjectives to describe its own reactional behavior and then mistakes them for nouns.

I remember reading a theory once that explained homosexuality not as a biological attraction towards the same sex but more about a stronger than normal attraction to a particular sex regardless of what sex the subject is. So a strong attraction to ‘men’ in general, a genetic trait that could be present in both men or women and vice versa. This theory was brought forward to explain how a ‘homosexual’ trait could survive evolution at all, which by all accounts it couldn’t. Any trait which caused an organism to be attracted solely to a member of the same sex, therefor prohibiting the reproduction, would have no way to compete in evolution as it would result in far far fffaaarrrr less gene propogation than heterosexual genes. So the theory that says that the man isn’t born homosexual, as in he’s attracted only to the same sex, but is born with a gene that causes him to be hyperattracted to males of his species. This gene could also be in women who might have a higher than normal attraction to men and therefor higher sex drive which would have no doubt led to greater promiscuity and a higher propagation rate of this particular gene.

In terms of why it illicits fear I would say that has something to do with fearing that which is different from ourselves, or perhaps the viewer empathizes with what he sees and puts himself in the scene psychology and I think it’s perfectly natural to be somewhat fearful of the ideas of being involved in gay sex if you are not gay.

I remember reading a theory once that explained homosexuality not as a biological attraction towards the same sex but more about a stronger than normal attraction to a particular sex regardless of what sex the subject is. So a strong attraction to ‘men’ in general, a genetic trait that could be present in both men or women and vice versa. This theory was brought forward to explain how a ‘homosexual’ trait could survive evolution at all, which by all accounts it couldn’t. Any trait which caused an organism to be attracted solely to a member of the same sex, therefor prohibiting the reproduction, would have no way to compete in evolution as it would result in far far fffaaarrrr less gene propogation than heterosexual genes. So the theory that says that the man isn’t born homosexual, as in he’s attracted only to the same sex, but is born with a gene that causes him to be hyperattracted to males of his species. This gene could also be in women who might have a higher than normal attraction to men and therefor higher sex drive which would have no doubt led to greater promiscuity and a higher propagation rate of this particular gene.

In terms of why it illicits fear I would say that has something to do with fearing that which is different from ourselves, or perhaps the viewer empathizes with what he sees and puts himself in the scene psychology and I think it’s perfectly natural to be somewhat fearful of the ideas of being involved in gay sex if you are not gay.

Somewhere I read that the rate of homosexuality increases with the number of sons a woman has.
I’m not sure if that has been authenticated but from an evolutionary point of view it makes (a little) sense.
Cui bono says that nothing in a biological organism passes muster unless it benefits the gene pool.
I’m wondering if the benefits of homosexuality to the tribe are so subtle that they avoid detection.